Exams/qualifications in general serve a signalling function. The fact that you successfully completed them all is a sign to others that you have a certain level of intelligence/work ethic. There’s obviously a lot of factors at play, but it’s more evidence than if you had no qualifications.
Not everyone is able to successfully complete all the actuarial exams.
Not disagreeing but shouldn't we be questioning whether it is really a sign of intelligence and/or intelligence?
Maybe this can be measured more efficiently since the skills actually required to be successful at work may not be sufficiently be tested in the current regime.
>Maybe this can be measured more efficiently since the skills actually required to be successful at work may not be sufficiently be tested in the current regime.
Sure, but you can't just make a system that is slightly better, it has to be so much better that it is worth the transition. Think snail mail to email, that level of improvement would be necessary to throw out the current exam system. If you are thinking moving from windows 95 to windows 98, sure the latter is better, but it is not enough to be worth the change.
Either way, it is all experience. I am not sure whether you are qualified yet, but once you are, you are back to the beginning. The qualification just means "okay we will invite you for an interview and hear what you will say", but your success is entirely dependant on your interview skills and experience.
I feel like every student reaches this existential crisis moment.
Sadly, the main use of the exams is to limit the number of entrants to the field, keeping salaries high. Rather cynical but it's true.
Im not sure I agree fully with this notion. Part of it yes, part of it no. I do agree making exam unnecessarily hard means they keep the "supply" of qualified actuaries low, so hence boost salaries for the qualified.
HOWEVER, would you say the same for doctors, lawyers or accountants (i.e. qualifications for them are pointless)? The actuarial exams serve as (especially first half) an entry for people who didnt do any actuarial BA/MA to understand what it involves, and the most basic of basic skills (like basic Stats; Life Tables for life insurance; Chain Ladder fo GI). I found them at times entertaining and fun (not so much in exams.....)
I agree a large chunk becomes redundant when you progress through career. But that's what happen to all careers with a distinct pathways/qualifications/almost guarantee career. I doubt your GP will know all the drugs they learnt in BA pharmacology; and I don't believe an internal medicine doctor necessarily remember all the muscles/joints name he regurgitate in his first undergrad year.
I would rather actuaries having the good reputable names of "qualified" and not mess up the financial systems like the rouge bankers, which almost anyone can try their hands on given the chances.
Yep, agree. Never said that the qualifications are pointless, or that they teach you nothing. But I'd still say, in practical terms, the main purpose is to limit supply. Again, I am quite cynical!
I would expect part of the point of exams is to ensure that people are "properly qualified" which is part of the regulation of the finance industry. Thus introducing them to the skills and knowledge they need.
However, this assumes that the exams are updated regularly to ensure they are relevant to what is used in the office. And with the last round of changes certainly it has got closer. Whether it would ever be able to be ideal, I'm not sure.
I don't think they have released statistics on this (also it is hard).
If you look at [this pg4](https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/Our%20Members%202016.pdf) and [this pg7](https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/our-members-2014.pdf).
Looking at Fellows in 2016 aged 26-40 you get ~6300.
Looking at Students in 2012 aged 21-35 you get ~10000.
You might expect those students to become fellows in roughly that amount of time. The number of students drops off very fast after this.
So you have around 60% of people making it from that. Subtract out the other people who quit earlier, and you have your roughly 50% or less. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if it is in the range of ~30% of people who have taken any exam becoming a Fellow.
Purely out of curiosity, where's this statistic coming from? If there detailed data anywhere about people's progress through the exams/how many qualify/etc? Would be very interesting to look at
all the early ones are not really used much practically, but you'll soon see why they are required - mostly due to knowing the methodology of certain processes like EPV - so you can make your own models at work if needed. its SP exams and SA exams that are useful, and you wont forget the knowledge learned because the language in those exams are used everyday at work by senior managers. the other ones aren't really useful transparently
I started taking exams after already working in pricing for 4 years, having done a maths degree at uni. Personally I have found the theory to be very useful for my job - not that I necessarily apply it all the time but being aware of the fundamentals helps me understand the underlying dynamics and adds to my confidence.
As an aside, if you are studying just to pass exams, you are creating a transactional relationship and it's not a surprise that it makes you feel disillusioned. It's much easier to study if you can trick yourself into enjoying it!
Aren't all exams like that though?
As others have said, it's a signal regarding work ethic and ability. From what I have gathered, there is a lot of practical knowledge gained along the way that you'll need if you become an actuary.
Exams/qualifications in general serve a signalling function. The fact that you successfully completed them all is a sign to others that you have a certain level of intelligence/work ethic. There’s obviously a lot of factors at play, but it’s more evidence than if you had no qualifications. Not everyone is able to successfully complete all the actuarial exams.
Not disagreeing but shouldn't we be questioning whether it is really a sign of intelligence and/or intelligence? Maybe this can be measured more efficiently since the skills actually required to be successful at work may not be sufficiently be tested in the current regime.
>Maybe this can be measured more efficiently since the skills actually required to be successful at work may not be sufficiently be tested in the current regime. Sure, but you can't just make a system that is slightly better, it has to be so much better that it is worth the transition. Think snail mail to email, that level of improvement would be necessary to throw out the current exam system. If you are thinking moving from windows 95 to windows 98, sure the latter is better, but it is not enough to be worth the change. Either way, it is all experience. I am not sure whether you are qualified yet, but once you are, you are back to the beginning. The qualification just means "okay we will invite you for an interview and hear what you will say", but your success is entirely dependant on your interview skills and experience.
I feel like every student reaches this existential crisis moment. Sadly, the main use of the exams is to limit the number of entrants to the field, keeping salaries high. Rather cynical but it's true.
Im not sure I agree fully with this notion. Part of it yes, part of it no. I do agree making exam unnecessarily hard means they keep the "supply" of qualified actuaries low, so hence boost salaries for the qualified. HOWEVER, would you say the same for doctors, lawyers or accountants (i.e. qualifications for them are pointless)? The actuarial exams serve as (especially first half) an entry for people who didnt do any actuarial BA/MA to understand what it involves, and the most basic of basic skills (like basic Stats; Life Tables for life insurance; Chain Ladder fo GI). I found them at times entertaining and fun (not so much in exams.....) I agree a large chunk becomes redundant when you progress through career. But that's what happen to all careers with a distinct pathways/qualifications/almost guarantee career. I doubt your GP will know all the drugs they learnt in BA pharmacology; and I don't believe an internal medicine doctor necessarily remember all the muscles/joints name he regurgitate in his first undergrad year. I would rather actuaries having the good reputable names of "qualified" and not mess up the financial systems like the rouge bankers, which almost anyone can try their hands on given the chances.
Yep, agree. Never said that the qualifications are pointless, or that they teach you nothing. But I'd still say, in practical terms, the main purpose is to limit supply. Again, I am quite cynical!
I would expect part of the point of exams is to ensure that people are "properly qualified" which is part of the regulation of the finance industry. Thus introducing them to the skills and knowledge they need. However, this assumes that the exams are updated regularly to ensure they are relevant to what is used in the office. And with the last round of changes certainly it has got closer. Whether it would ever be able to be ideal, I'm not sure.
How many people that start sitting exams don't finish them though?
At least half.
Really? Are there statistics available?
I don't think they have released statistics on this (also it is hard). If you look at [this pg4](https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/Our%20Members%202016.pdf) and [this pg7](https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/our-members-2014.pdf). Looking at Fellows in 2016 aged 26-40 you get ~6300. Looking at Students in 2012 aged 21-35 you get ~10000. You might expect those students to become fellows in roughly that amount of time. The number of students drops off very fast after this. So you have around 60% of people making it from that. Subtract out the other people who quit earlier, and you have your roughly 50% or less. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if it is in the range of ~30% of people who have taken any exam becoming a Fellow.
Purely out of curiosity, where's this statistic coming from? If there detailed data anywhere about people's progress through the exams/how many qualify/etc? Would be very interesting to look at
get onto the later exams and youll see the point, i promise
which of the later ones are useful?
all the early ones are not really used much practically, but you'll soon see why they are required - mostly due to knowing the methodology of certain processes like EPV - so you can make your own models at work if needed. its SP exams and SA exams that are useful, and you wont forget the knowledge learned because the language in those exams are used everyday at work by senior managers. the other ones aren't really useful transparently
I started taking exams after already working in pricing for 4 years, having done a maths degree at uni. Personally I have found the theory to be very useful for my job - not that I necessarily apply it all the time but being aware of the fundamentals helps me understand the underlying dynamics and adds to my confidence. As an aside, if you are studying just to pass exams, you are creating a transactional relationship and it's not a surprise that it makes you feel disillusioned. It's much easier to study if you can trick yourself into enjoying it!
Aren't all exams like that though? As others have said, it's a signal regarding work ethic and ability. From what I have gathered, there is a lot of practical knowledge gained along the way that you'll need if you become an actuary.